|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Nigel Warburton on Why Video Games Are GoodPosted on Aug 13, 2010
By Nigel Warburton This review originally appeared in The TLS, whose website is www.the-tls.co.uk, and is reposted with permission. “What is it like to be a gamer?” Unless you are prepared to commit hundreds—perhaps thousands—of hours to honing your skills in video games such as World of Warcraft, Mario, Tetris, Grand Theft Auto IV or The Sims, you are unlikely to appreciate the sophisticated pleasures such interactive worlds can provide. Nor will you understand the motivation of the men, women and children who spend so much of their lives within them. If you have never experienced the poetic game Passage—an abstract representation of some of life’s essentials that is in its simplicity more profound than much contemporary art—how can you pronounce on the nature of video games? Received middlebrow opinion is that the frissons such pursuits produce are distinctly lower pleasures. Video games—unlike chess and bridge—are deemed escapist, and at best distractions from what really matters in life. At worst they are turning a generation into pale antisocial creatures with repetitive strain injury and a propensity to engage in real violence. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, described these alleged victims as “blinking lizards… without ratiocination, discovery or feat of memory”. Video games are supposed to be doing what Plato warned mimetic art would do: they are corrupting those who play them and leaving them mistaken about what truly matters in life.
Fun Inc.: Why Gaming Will Dominate the Twenty-First Century
By Tom Chatfield
Pegasus, 288 pages
If reading a poem in the persona of an immoralist coarsens the spirit—as Plato believed—think how patrolling a virtual urban wasteland as a psychopath with an automatic gun at your hip might affect you. Video games are widely dismissed as addictive time-killers that will reprogramme your brain and ultimately stupefy you. Tom Chatfield [the author of Fun Inc.: Why Games Are the 21st Century’s Most Serious Business], himself an enthusiastic and eclectic gameplayer, has written an informed and intelligent case for the other side. Many prejudices about the people who play these games stem from ignorance about how the industry has evolved since the 1980s and 90s. Once the target audience consisted almost entirely of solitary geeky men; now roughly 90 per cent of Western adolescents play them. A surprising 40 per cent of videogame players in the United States are women. The games have changed too. The majority of the most popular, such as The Sims, are violence-free, and shirk the “seek-avoid-kill” model so often seen in arcades. Some, such as the popular Dr Kawashima’s Brain Training for the handheld console the Nintendo DS, are overtly educational, and give immediate feedback on performance. Many teach strategy and cooperation as a side effect. Others, of course, we know, merit their “18” certificates. Chatfield is highly sceptical of the idea that interactive violent games engender violence in ordinary life. The evidence he adduces suggests that this is too crude a causal story to be plausible. It turns out that the huge increase in the number of people playing games with violent content in the past two decades has coincided with a decline in violent crime in the United States and the European Union, rather than the increase critics would have predicted. The reasons for this may be complex, but it’s a fact that should allay some fears. Far from acting as triggers for violence, games might even prepare players to deal with it. Chatfield quotes Judge Richard Posner’s reaction to an attempt to restrict children’s access to violent arcade games in Indianapolis: “To shield children right up to the age of eighteen from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming. It would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it”. Games can undoubtedly amplify certain human tendencies; Chatfield emphasizes how they build on our desire to learn, our delight in problemsolving, our sociability and our rivalries. He grants that they aren’t a panacea, and can’t teach us how to live, but because they are on the whole fun to play, and have many individual and social benefits, they can help us to be happier and even perhaps to live better. Whether or not you share Chatfield’s optimism, Fun Inc. should help to block the fear-mongering generalization—the riffing on prejudices—that has passed for insight on this topic in broadsheet comment pages. If critics of game-playing can’t bring themselves to enter these worlds themselves, to learn first-hand what they are talking about, they should at least read this insightful book.
Advertisement TAGS:
|
Lock Up Washington
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By regencychess, February 13, 2012 at 2:21 am Link to this comment
If you really break it down, games like chess also make people anti social and are really not much different from video games. I think we have to look at the bright side of things always, and try to do everything in moderation.
Report thisBy Anonymous Bosch, January 11, 2011 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Sorry, studies done so far that link game violence with real-life violence are at BEST inconclusive, and many of them discover no meaningful correlation whatsoever. Remember that we’re not talking about whether videogames make people feel competitive, hot-blooded, angry, upset or any number of other emotions that are common in any kind of gaming, computerized or otherwise. Videogames, like the entire spectrum of human activity, have a great range of effects on the people who play them. Most people who play them think they’re fun and relaxing. We’re talking about an actual correlation between playing violent games and taking violent action on others. This has NOT, I repeat NOT, ever been shown to exist. Read your studies. Look at the parameters that are actually being measured in these studies.
A note on remote warfare: it looks to me like the military is changing its stuff to make real killing more like playing a game. So is that the fault of games? If the military makes a chess simulation that deploys actual troops when you move a piece, are chess players then likely to be targeted as sociopaths? Silly, silly, silly. And implying that playing games inspires a trigger response devoid of intelligent thought is also ludicrous. Teenagers don’t get home from school, log on to the Pentagon’s web server and start piloting around remote drones in the Middle East. People piloting robotic military hardware have been trained, institutionalized and know EXACTLY what they’re doing when they pull that trigger. Sure, maybe they’re desensitized because they’re not there, in the flesh, observing the results of their actions. But when did that become an issue with videogames? Military technology is evolving, and because it looks like previously existing entertainment technology, that original technology is coming under scrutiny. A lot of reversal of cause and effect going on with that line of logic.
A good metastudy:
http://www.arts.rpi.edu/public_html/ruiz/public_html/EGDFall10/readings/Reading 05 - Violent Videogames [Jeffrey Goldstein].pdf
A good quote from this study:
“Horrible things will make us horrible, not horrified. Terrifying things will make us terrifying, not terrified. To see something aggressive makes us feel aggressive, not aggressed against. And the nastier it is, the nastier it is likely to make us. This idea is so odd, it is hard to know where to begin in challenging it.”
Report this-M. Barker
By micmic88, August 23, 2010 at 12:53 am Link to this comment
I think video games are great for stimulating the brain, but I agree that it is important to involve other activities as well. Great article though.
Report this__
best romance movies
By Géza Éder, August 18, 2010 at 6:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 are *the* top selling video games (apart from Nintendo’s stuff) in the US, by quite a margin. They are quite obviously and very clearly racist (anti-arab), jingoist, promote war and American nationalism; they’re also a *prototype* for a whole genre…which is the *single most popular* video game genre, especially among teen boys.
There’s an entire segment in Modern Warfare where you effectively replay the “controversial” (let me say it clearly: it’s disgusting and inhumane and should lead to huge discussions in any reasonable society) AC-130 video. Look at these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsA9VtQ_uLg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl1Gg5Sehg0
First is reality, second is the game. If you find nothing wrong with these, you shouldn’t be allowed near kids.
There’s also a section in the first game where the evil Arab madman leader (most arabs in the games are quite mad and evil) drops an atomic bomb on *his own capital*, despite heroic British and American soldiers trying to save them from themselves. This is probably the most disgusting stuff in the games…maybe you can understand why, if you look at the history of a) nuclear weapons and b) arab states in the Gulf.
There’s a section in the second game where you play as a terrorist and can massacre civilians on a Russian airport (this part of the game was “censored” in Russia…although, of course, it’s quite obviously bad for children no matter where they live).
Again, these are *not fringe games*. These are *the* most played high-budget games in America, and a prototype for a whole subgenre (military shooters), and also a model for the whole shooter genre. The military approach (military speak and character relations especially) seeps into other games/genres as well. I’ve grown up with Communist propaganda, and it was impossible to take seriously, but this is on a whole different level.
As for these games not making kids more aggressive etc…just log in to Xbox Live and join a game of MW2. You’ll find loads of racist and sexist American teenagers, a huge amount of rage, an incredible amount of swearing and offensive language, primarily against anyone non-whites and non-Americans. Just, you know, look at stuff, if you don’t want to read actual studies. The difference between American and other people on Xbox Live is incredibly huge.
Report thisBy Géza Éder, August 18, 2010 at 6:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@gamerdad: “My theory is that there are two kinds of people who criticize video games. Those who haven’t played them and criticize them out of ignorance, and those who tried but are too slow or stupid to do well and have to put them down in order to cover up their feelings of inferiority. “
So, basically, anyone who doesn’t agree with you is either crap at games or dumb? This is not a “theory”, it’s a way for you to ignore/downplay opinion that you don’t agree with, simple as that.
There are quite a few studies that suggest that
a) consumption of violent media does have a negative effect on kids wrt antisocial behaviour and b) overconsumption of media (any type of mass media) has a negative effect on academic achievement of children (in several ways, ranging from simply taking away time from studying to decreasing attention time). Of course you can choose not to agree with these, but you’re effectively saying that anyone who might agree with these is either dumb or crap at games (and thus has a feeling of inferiority). There are also studies that talk about how younger children find distinguishing between video games and reality difficult etc, but I personally think that the two problems (especially the second one) I listed are the two most obvious and dangerous ones.
As I said, I love videogames, I’m also not exactly bad at them, I have a collection of hundreds of games (including some rare stuff hehe), but I don’t find it difficult to look at them critically. They’re mostly trash, but so are movies; the bigger problem is that there’s not a single videogame that compares even remotely to artistic achievements that cinema or literature.
Report thisBy ofersince72, August 17, 2010 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment
As the snow flies
On a cold and gay Chicago mornin
A poor little boy is born
In the getto
And his mama cries
Cause if there is one thing that she don’t need
It’s another hungry mouth to feed
In the Getto
People don’t you understand
this child needs a helpin hand
Or he’ll grow up to be an angry young man
Take a look around at you and me
Do we simply turn our heads
And look the other way
Well, the world turns
And a hungry little boy with a runny nose
Plays in the street as the cold wind blows
In the getto
And his hunger burns
So he starts to roam the streets at night
And he learns how to steal
and he learns how to fight
In the getto
Then one night in desperation
A young man breaks away
He buys a gun, steals a car
Tries to run but he don’t get far
And his mama cries
As a crowd gathers round an angry young man
Face down on the street with a gun in his hand
In the getto
As her young man dies
Report thisOn a cold grey Chicago mornin
Another little baby child is born
In the getto
By gerard, August 17, 2010 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment
GamerDad: I truly wish I could have your confidence, but, sad to say, my reasoning tells me otherwise.It’s not about knowing the difference between video games and reality. It’s about rapid hand-eye coordination becoming habituated through practice, plus the fact that when video gamers “shoot” “enemies”, it is not necessary to stop and consider whether innocent people might get killed because nobody gets killed. But when men in Tampa, or Yemen, or another part of the battlefield, press the button, real people get killed, often most of them innocent bystanders, and in the heat of real battle there is no time to consider, let alone time to reflect. You do what you are told, as quickly as possible.
Report thisVideo games leak over into robotics—for example, SWORDS. “The SWORDS is armed with the user’s choice of weaponry ... ranging from an M16 rifle and 50 calibre machine gun to a 40mm grenade launcher or an anti-tank rocket launcher. In less than a minute the human soldier flips two levers and locks his favorite weapon into the mount. ...Unlike the PackBot, SWORDS has very limited intelligence on its own, and is remote-controlled from afar by either radio or a spooled out fiber optic wire. ... It opens up to reveal a video screen, a handful of buttons, and two joysticks that the soldier uses to drive the SWORDS and fire its weapons. At the time of my visit, Foster-Miller was exploring replacing the controller with a Nintendo Games Boy-style controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles.”
—from Wired for War, by PW Singer, p. 32.
I’m no authority on this kind of thing, but I can see why the military uses video games in training—and it ain’t for fun!
By gamerdad, August 17, 2010 at 11:26 am Link to this comment
My theory is that there are two kinds of people who criticize video games. Those who haven’t played them and criticize them out of ignorance, and those who tried but are too slow or stupid to do well and have to put them down in order to cover up their feelings of inferiority.
There is no connection between playing video games (violent or otherwise) and real violence. Just because the military uses video games for training or video controlled weapons to carry out actual violence does not mean that playing violent video games would make you any more inclined to commit real acts of violence. The military also holds physical training in order for soldiers to be in better condition to kill more efficiently. Should I stop jogging and exercising? Come to think of it, playing baseball might help me train to throw grenades better, guess we should stop that too. I play video games but I don’t have any less regard for human life than any given non-gamer and I don’t fantasize about real life killing. Get over it people, we (gamers) know the difference between video games and reality.
Report thisBy gerard, August 17, 2010 at 10:51 am Link to this comment
DdK: You summed it all up very well:
Report this“Video games are just another scape goat for the denial of accountability.” If I’d said it, I’d have left out the “just” because it implies “nothing more than” and minimizes the significance of the sentence.
For instance, war is not “just” something that has been going on for thousands of years.
By jsper, August 16, 2010 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment
Never had the obscene desire to play a game that meant by destroying the lives of video ‘others’ I would gain some sort of satisfaction?! What?
Report thisFucking american culture.. The most powerful nation in the world is leading the way to detonate all of humanity as it encourages ‘fun’ by ending the lives of ‘anonymous’ beings.
Of course there’s an analogy between playing macho games and blowing up our ‘enemies’ and their families.
As it relates to the violence in the Middle East, the War Profiteers win and nobody in the US gives a shit.
By Malcontent, August 16, 2010 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment
By John Ellis, August 16 at 9:01 pm
“Video games like all forms of entertainment, are enjoyed only by those who are self-absorbed and selfish. For entertainment accomplishes nothing but to please self and to gratify inner emotions which is all there is to self.”
Wow. You are a hypocritical, arrogant piece of shit, aren’t you. You’ve never played a game?
“For there are only two types of people in the world, the self-absorbed who take in pleasure and enrich themselves upon the misery of others, and the chosen few, the harmless who enrich themselves upon the enrichment of others.”
You forgot the self-obsessed narcissist who ignores his entire existence as a human, in an attempt to put down others, when he can’t make a coherent argument.
Video games are less of a waste of time than trying to reason with you. Good luck with your ego issues.
Report thisBy DdK, August 16, 2010 at 9:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The military uses video games for training so this equates to video games seducing and desensitizing children to war?
Report thisPffft, I don’t buy it.
The military gives dummy guns and grenades to soldiers to romp around in the forest for training as well. I (and pretty much every man) used to do the same thing as a kid but I don’t here an outcry for the banishment of sticks and pine cones.
Put an avid game-player behind the controls of a drone and tell him that a real person is going to die at his hand and most of them wouldn’t do it.
We are not all insane,weak mind idiots. Most of us actually DO know the difference between reality and fantasy.
Some of you seem to think that war is a contemporary invention. News flash, ever since man could hold a stick, he’s made war. Video games are just another scape goat for the denial of accountability.
By Malcontent, August 16, 2010 at 8:40 am Link to this comment
Video games are not remote bombing machines, even if they are both computerized.
Not all video games are violent.
...hello…is this thing on?
I used to think it was a waste of time, but now a few laps in a virtual race car seems more productive than attempting to communicate a simple fact on this blog.
Thank god I am a singular mercenary in training. Imagine the hordes of Wii bowlers out there, cruising in groups of 4 or even 6. Maybe the government should place limits on the number of Wii controllers any one household can have?
Report thisBy ofersince72, August 15, 2010 at 9:55 pm Link to this comment
How about this video game.
Report this“SKIN THE LOBBYIST”
By ofersince72, August 15, 2010 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment
Do they have any video games out there yet of these?
“PIN THE LAWYER”
Report this“DRILL THE POLITICIAN”
“DISECT THE IVY LEAGUERS BRAIN”
By Malcontent, August 15, 2010 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment
“The problem with use in games and use in drone or robotic warfare is that the “simulation” quality discnnects the button-pusher from the victims.”
The difference, of course, is that the game is a simulation and the victims a.) don’t actually exist and b.) not all games have victims.
Report thisBy Malcontent, August 15, 2010 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment
By gerard, August 16 at 12:44 am
I share your concerns about the disconnect in remote warfare.
But again, remote warfare is not actually a video game. There seems to be an inability to see the difference between the two, with many posters here. If this inability to distinguish one thing, from another distinct, but perhaps similar looking thing, is as prevalent in the real word as on this site, I may have to reconsider my views on everything.
Report thisBy gerard, August 15, 2010 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment
Malcontent: You asked: ” A better question might be, how many Sims players or mario-carts champions are operating drone aircraft? ” Interesting question, and I suppose maybe the Pentagon has some answers, since they definitely use video games for training somewhere along the line.
The problem with use in games and use in drone or robotic warfare is that the “simulation” quality discnnects the button-pusher from the victims. In the case of games it doesn’t matter because the victims are not humans. In warfare it does matter because the victims are humans.
The demand for speed in button-pushing causes a disconnect which prevents the button-pusher from
realizing the difference between the effects of pushng the button and possibly making a judgment call NOT to push the button. It’s all over before he has time to think.
That’s an advantage in warfare because notody is required to take time to think. In fact, thinking might cause a slowdown in performance or a refusl to participate, either of which might be disastrous to the war machine.
Report thisBy Malcontent, August 15, 2010 at 11:10 am Link to this comment
By John Ellis, August 15 at 10:05 am
OK. I give up. You are obviously passionate about your views. You make some interesting, yet still irrelevant points. And I can’t say I disagree with your basic assessment of our culture.
I still fail to see how computerizing gaming has any relevance to the situation. Computers are powerful and ubiquitous. Games have been around forever. Hence games are computerized.
Some of you act like war games are the only games anybody plays. Personally, I like driving/flying simulators and puzzle games. Most of my friends seem to be into Sims, some farm game, Wii bowling and mario bros. based games. Perhaps it is different personality types who seek out different kinds of games?
It seems to me your actual problem is with games, as they manifest themselves in popular culture, not with computerizing them.
Did you need a computer to be compelled to strap a fake gun to your body? Ever played chess or stratego? Ever watch boxing, pro-wrestling, football or hockey? (Ever notice how violent sports are idolized in our culture and destroying our schools?) Isn’t it usually the biggest dick in the room, who wins the monopoly game?
The whole part about drone operators being into violent video games, is just silly. Let’s see… they’re young, hence exposed to video games They’re violent, hence they probably liked violent games. Seems kinda self evident to me. A better question might be, how many Sims players or mario-carts champions are operating drone aircraft?
Report thisBy Géza Éder, August 15, 2010 at 7:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Anyway, I’m not “against” video games (I own loads…way too many, especially by Hungarian standards, and I also play them a lot - just finishing DQ9 atm), I really love them, but I’d like them to be a little bit more…responsible? It’s just that games like MW, which have really refined mechanics and are a joy to play, seem to have to be hateful, racist, jingoist propaganda, with absolutely inhuman missions like the Gunship part in the original or the Russian airport part in the sequel - and the underlying racism, jingoism and bigotry should be, in my opinion, absolutely disgusting to anyone with any sense of morality (and knowledge of history).
Or take the idea for the Fallujah game - this would have been (or will be) a game that’s based on the real life Fallujah “siege”. And people think this is ok because American veterans will be consulted, and noone understands how disgusting the entire idea is.
Or look at the Dante’s Inferno game. The problem in this case isn’t the game itself, which is a competent hack and slash, it’s the PR/marketing background and the way it was designed.
There are indeed loads of cool games - but gaming is overwhelmingly corporate and marketing based, with not much space for individual creativity (in terms of money - of course there is quite a bit of worthwhile indie stuff). They’re also very good for propaganda (business, “lifestyle” or military), and they’re also very addictive. In addition to this, they’re easy to “consume” and require no attention and focus to enjoy, so they pose a very real threat to managing learning activities for children (because no matter which way you look at it, learning is much more difficult and involves a lot more effort than playing
)
That’s not to say there are no games that do require effort and skill, and there are communities (like the Interactive Fiction communities or Dwarf Fortress or Minecraft these days) with real creativity. It’s not the videogame medium that’s the problem - it’s the way effort (ie. money) is distributed among videogames, so mainly a business issue, and of course the fact that the educational systems can’t really handle this kind of pressure. And yeah, videogames are just a part of the problem, TV is much worse imo.
And finally, a word about what I call the “parent fallacy”, the idea that only parents are responsible if their kids grow up badly, not media. Of course taken in themselves, videogames can be controlled to some extent, but overall, media pressure is not easy for average parents, who both work 10+ hours a day, to monitor and control their children’s habits - especially if the parents were themselves brought up with the idea that media consumption doesn’t factor into anything. You have to be relatively rich and have to have a lot of time to be able to avoid this problem. And there absolutely is a huge cultural pressure on parents to a) think of mass media consumption as harmless and neutral and b) let/make kids consume more and more media. You can spend money on this really efficiently too (because consuming mass media is “easy” (as compared to reading or studying) and fun). So while parents are indeed responsible for their own kids, their (and the educational system’s) power to handle this responsibility is very much decreased.
I mean, I don’t think that media companies have a right to indoctrinate kids with “bad” (or just busy) parents. Do I have a right to take your money if you’re not looking? Do I have a right to lie to you about important stuff as long as I get away with it? So why the hell would big companies have the right to indoctrinate a child if a parent doesn’t have the time or money or attention? I mean, if a parent forgets to lock the door once and someone comes in and does something to their child, they’re responsible, but the *crime* is not committed by them and the criminal committing it is still the one to be punished, no?
Report thisBy Géza Éder, August 15, 2010 at 6:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@Malcontent: I was actually talking about this claim: “It turns out that the huge increase in the number of people playing games with violent content in the past two decades has coincided with a decline in violent crime in the United States and the European Union, rather than the increase critics would have predicted.”
Fact is, this article looks like it’s listing the five top “arguments” made by fifteen year olds on gaming forums. As for the claim itself, there are different opinions from different researchers. And of course critical research is never publicised in gaming media, while everythinhg that says otherwise is immediately jumped on, no matter how stupid it is. Also, gaming media always avoids actual discussion and prefers easy targets like Jack Thompson etc - everything that idiot did was immediately reported.
The main question is this: is it possible that seeing thousands of dead people or being immersed in (both interactive and non-interactive) violence or watching more than 7 hours of screen media a day (which is what American kids do now, a lot of this being videogames) or using media that’s designed for easy “consumption”, that gives cheap, immediate satisfaction may not be completely 100% harmless for kids? Maybe it does lead to antisocial behavior and attention deficit problems. I mean, it’s not that difficult to imagine, regardless of how much I like playing videogames. There is quite a bit of research that suggests that teens playing violent videogames:
* Tend to be more aggressive
* Are more prone to confrontation with their teachers
* May engage in fights with their peers
* See a decline in school achievements.
(http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm)
Not even mentioning the gaming industry’s advertising habits. Seriously, I like videogames, but denying their possible harm is just idiotic.
@UreKismet:“There are lots of games which do require the player to relate their gaming to ‘the big wide world’. “Bioshock” is a major big selling game that explores the corrupting nature of power by creating a mini world of the 1930’s and 40’s where Ayn Randians and Trots, both desperate to prove the ‘correctness’ of their view sacrifice the population in order to save it.”
Despite the fancy coating, Bioshock is still a first person shooter, where your main task is to kill shit for ten or so hours. It’s considered “intelligent” because of a plot twist, which is kind of cool, as long as you haven’t seen anything like that before, and your range of appreciable quality falls between Superman comics and Lost. At best it’s the backstory that “explores the corrupting nature of power” - which is created to appear intelligent to people like you and has basically nothing to do with the actual game - because it’s still nothing more than a horror shooter.
“And some like Modern Warfare push an amerikan centric worldview. Most do not. The same kids play the militaristic shooters that lap up corporate propaganda; games don’t create prejudices they play to existing prejudices.”
Oh believe me, most do. It’s obviously not as clear to Americans, but most American games push American values. And they might not create prejudices, but they certainly enhance them. Modern Warfare and MW2 are pretty much the premium gaming franchise now, apart from Nintendo games, and every game wants to be like them
Report thisBy Malcontent, August 14, 2010 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
By John Ellis, August 14 at 10:10 pm
Again, this has what bearing on video games and children? Are you saying the current crop of leaders and their mostly older voting base have been negatively affected by video games?
Maybe we ban gaming on voting day to improve turn out?
Can you make any correlation, much less show causation that video games are responsible for public apathy and stupidity?
Not disagreeing with your assessment of ours as a violent and stupid culture, just don’t see any evidence that video games have any bearing on these things.
Seriously…you lost me.
War is bad.
Video games are fun.
Report thisBy Malcontent, August 14, 2010 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment
By John Ellis, August 14 at 10:10 pm
Again, this has what bearing on video games and children? Are you saying the current crop of leaders and their mostly older voting base have been negatively affected by video games?
Maybe we ban gaming on voting day to improve turn out?
Can you make any correlation, much less show causation that video games are responsible for public apathy and stupidity?
Not disagreeing with your assesment of ours as a violent and stupid culture, just don’t see any evidence that video games have any bearing on these things.
Seriously…you lost me.
War is bad.
Video games are fun.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, August 14, 2010 at 7:53 pm Link to this comment
My 11 year old son is an 80th level warrior on the World of Warcraft, an interactive online game with more shit than I have ever seen.
Report thisBy Malcontent, August 14, 2010 at 5:18 pm Link to this comment
By John Ellis, August 14 at 8:22 pm
“But “violent crime” is what our wars of plunder and cheep oil in the Middle-East is all about. Wars of aggression committed by ours the most violent and sadistic society the world has ever known.”
True. And this has what bearing on video games and violence? Children playing video games don’t vote, lobby or manage any organization.
Report thisBy Malcontent, August 14, 2010 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment
By Géza Éder, August 13 at 9:05 am
“A really bad article, regurgitating stupid, commonplace viewpoints without any actual insight. My favourite stupidity is about the “connection” between the decline of violent crime and spread of video games. I mean, anyone who actually knows what an “argument” is would laugh at it (it is usually based on putting graphs of 20 year trends of video games and violent crime next to each other, the classic causation fallacy).”
By felicity, August 13 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment
“Oh, so that’s why our kids are doing so well in school,
why our kids are dropping out of school at warp speed,
why half our population is functionally illiterate.
Forget education, give all our kids video games and
we’ll have the best educated most erudite populace on
the planet.”
OK. One more time, for those who were to quick to comment, judgmentally, before they actually read the article;
Posted on Aug 12, 2010
By Nigel Warburton
“Chatfield is highly sceptical of the idea that interactive violent games engender violence in ordinary life. The evidence he adduces suggests that this is too crude a causal story to be plausible. It turns out that the huge increase in the number of people playing games with violent content in the past two decades has coincided with a decline in violent crime in the United States and the European Union, rather than the increase critics would have predicted. The reasons for this may be complex, but it’s a fact that should allay some fears.
Please try to actually read the story first next time.
Report thisBy UreKismet, August 14, 2010 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment
I had no idea there was so much rage against video games out there. After a few nights in the 1970’s perfecting pong playing in a bar I ignored vid games for decades cause I found the later iterations (space invaders et al) to be less than compelling. Then I had children and reluctantly gave in to their desire to conform to peer pressure. I discovered much had changed in 30 years not least of all the humour and skill of some game makers.
Report thisMost games do feature some sort of ‘death’ - how else can they replicate a lifecycle? And some like Modern Warfare push an amerikan centric worldview. Most do not. The same kids play the militaristic shooters that lap up corporate propaganda; games don’t create prejudices they play to existing prejudices.
That means there are a huge number of smart, funny, and wise games out there being lapped up by smart, funny, and wise humans.
That doesn’t suit the broad brush strokes of the cardboard cut out brand of ‘liberal’ so they ignore the bulk of gaming to prattle on about MW.
Thinking lefties, humanists or (insert favourite current cliche), enjoy games that don’t ask them to compromise their world view.
There are lots of games which do require the player to relate their gaming to ‘the big wide world’. “Bioshock” is a major big selling game that explores the corrupting nature of power by creating a mini world of the 1930’s and 40’s where Ayn Randians and Trots, both desperate to prove the ‘correctness’ of their view sacrifice the population in order to save it.
The game wasn’t perfect but I guarantee it would have taught thinking young people more about the nature of social and political institutions than any lame history channel ‘documentary’ or opinionated ‘history text’.
By samd11, August 14, 2010 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Wishing video games away, violent or not, is like wishing comic books away fifty
Report thisyears ago….its not going to happen. Children can be taught to use them and to
gain insights into the world they will inherit. My four year old grandson is very
visually oriented in his learning as a result of playing wii video games. Now we
need the schools to update their teaching methods to accommodate this new
generation of smart gamers. Unfortunately, I won’t hold my breath on that one.
By Ian H, August 14, 2010 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment
I don’t really get why some people are so strongly opposed to children playing video games.
I usually expect that opinion to come from the worthless parents who would rather television (and all other media) be censored so that they don’t have to talk to their children about any important issues or worry about developing them as a person.
Don’t get me wrong, I feel that video games are so violent and realistic now that parents need to understand the difference between Modern Warfare 2 and games more appropriate for young children.
I LOVE video games and think that as long as parents make sure their children read books more than they play games (as mine did) there is no problem with them. It’s like many other issues with parenting. Don’t feed your kids fast food every day. Encourage your children to read. Be respectful, etc. That’s up to the parents though.
I certainly don’t think that video games are working wonders as an educational tool. Maybe 1 in 100,000 cases.
Report thisBy gerard, August 13, 2010 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment
gamemrdad: I’d be interested to know why you “don’t expose my kids to the more violent games.”
Report thisBy prosefights, August 13, 2010 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment
Electric cost and supply trouble ahead? Maybe even WW III?
According to the Times, China’s “civilian nuclear power industry” (and rest assured there’s a Chinese military nuclear power industry as well) has 11 operating reactors, with as many
as 10 new reactors per year planned for the next 15 years. That’s 150 new reactors just in China.
So where will the world nuclear industry obtain the uranium fuel for all these new reactors?
That’s a darn good question. Just in the US, annual uranium use for the nuclear power industry is about 55 million pounds. The US produces less than 4 million pounds of this
fuel - about 7% - and imports the rest.
if Byron King is correct?
The aging revolutionary was escorted to the podium amid a thunderous applause and gave a 12-minute speech that centered on nuclear war before taking questions from an adoring parliamentary crowd.
“The babies, the adolescents and the young people of the world can be saved from this [potential] nuclear holocaust,” he warned, gripping the wooden podium and wagging his finger in a fashion reminiscent of years past.
Russia says it will undertake a key step next week towards starting up a reactor at Iran’s first nuclear power station.
Russia’s state atomic corporation, which is building the plant, said engineers will begin loading the Bushehr reactor with fuel.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, August 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment
Re: ofersince72, August 13 at 9:02 am
“I don’t play them, but if I did, I would want to play one with a whole lot of blood and guts and titties.”
Truely refreshing.
It would have been nice to have a gameboy while bivouacked in the high desert, alas that was before computers.
Report thisBy gamerdad, August 13, 2010 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
I’m a married dad in my mid 40’s who enjoys playing video games to wind down at night. I think, plan, strategize, and have a lot of fun. The games I play are sometimes violent (like Modern Warfare 2)but I am exposed to far more violent images and stories every day in my news media job but I am not at all a violent person after years of gaming. How is this worse than most people who watch hours of intelligence insulting tv shows every night? At least I’m using my brain and being (mentally) active. I don’t expose my kids to the more violent games but they do play other video games like guitar hero, which I’d much prefer they do than watching tv shows. Cancel your cable service, video games are good.
Report thisBy DevilsAdvocate, August 13, 2010 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s disappointing to see J. Lieberman’s argument about video games desensitizing people repeated on this bored. No piece of entertainment can convince someone to act out like a sociopath.
I saw Alien hiding behind a couch (the only way I would be allowed to watch) when I was six, I have yet to impregnate a human by face-fucking.
I read Exodus and Shibumi a few years later and neither participate in militias or kill people with credit cards.
I played Street Fighter 2 against my sister, but never got in any street fights.
I think the comments here miss the point of the article, which is simply that this is a new medium that like other forms of emerging entertainment before, faces a great deal of criticism, some of which is unfair; the form is progressing from that period to be seen in a new cultural context more likely to accurately asses both flaws and benefits.
Report thisBy gerard, August 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment
I’d feel a lot better about video games if the Pentagon wasn’t using them for training. ” but today’s Army is turning increasingly to video game-style training tools to prepare the modern GI for the challenges he or she will face in the field. That includes everything from dealing with IEDs to winning hearts and minds in occupied settlements, or coping with the devastating consequences of post-traumatic stress disorder.”—Mike Smith at Yahoo Games.
Report thisIt’s not so much that video games aren’t portraying reality. It’s that the speed demanded by button-pushing doesn’t allow any time for thought, for calculating results, for realizing effects on victims.
“Oh, come on! It’s just a game!”
So ... international war is also evasively referred to as “the great game”, or a show in a “theater”. If we keep training kids in button-pushing violence, Act V will very likely have
“devastating consequences” for the human race.
By Anonymous Bosch, August 13, 2010 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
And yet I would hazard to guess that the author’s main point (that those criticizing video games rarely play them) is still largely the case. I will share with you my example: I have been playing violent shooter videogames since I can really remember. Spaceships, battleaxes, shotguns, zombies, aliens, you name it. I have also rubbed elbows with an astounding number of other people who play viscerally violent videogames. My experience of these people is that they are on the whole either very averagely-adjusted people, or if anything, LESS likely to inflict violence of any kind upon another being. They are not all going on school killing sprees (like the media would have you believe). They are not out at the shooting range. They are not on the streets committing armed robbery, assault or any of the actions depicted in the games they play. No, they are people who come home from school and work, sit down and play hours of videogames. And that’s it. You see more fights break out at your high school soccer practice than you do at gaming conventions. A quick look at the main demographic who plays violent videogames reveals that they are more likely to be glasses-wearing, thin and pale types, and let’s not get our chain of cause and effect confused here - it’s not the games that made them that way. It’s their choice of pastime and their preference for indoor pursuits that lead them to videogaming. The gaming culture is rife with nerdy book quotes, sci-fi film references, geeky computer hacks and general dorkery, and this is because the bookish, nerdy types are the ones that are drawn to sit for hours in their room, chasing some heady pursuit.
People exert unnecessary violence upon other people because of physical or emotional instability. A teenage boy is more likely to hit another kid because his parents are fighting at home than because he played MW2. A kid is more likely to feel competitive rage after an unfair call in a soccer game than they would after a bad match of Counter Strike. A man who overproduces testosterone will be more likely to end up in a fistfight at the local bar after work than one who sits up late into the night playing Halo. The kids who did the Columbine shootings somehow managed to have access to automatic weapons and the means to make explosives, and nobody seemed to want to examine why that was. The story seems to be that one moment they played Doom, and the next moment, through some self-contained, psycho-alchemical process, they manifested military-grade weapons and a bloodthirsty urge to kill their classmates. Stop and consider real chains of cause and effect before before pronouncing judgment upon a (massive) demographic that you don’t understand.
I would urge critics to leave their conjecture where it belongs and try to see this culture for what it really is. Your moral judgments are not supported by scientific, psychological, statistical or anecdotal evidence. I suggest that you do some homework on the subject, and (gasp) maybe even play a few games before condemning a segment of the population that is growing at an alarming rate.
Report thisBy km, August 13, 2010 at 11:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m so glad to learn that video games like Grand Theft Auto in which more points are gained for not only buying a woman for sex but murdering her too. I’m sure that this “prepares” boys to “deal” with the wide-spread pornographication of this culture, and male sexual entitlement, not to mention the definitions of masculinity as violent and sexual predatory. Gee this must be why boys admit that pornography on computers have led them to seeing their own girlfriends in the same light.
Report thisThe causal argument as the commentator above put is more light-weight than conceivable—as if a direct cause and effect relationship between say playing with guns; cowboy and Indian games; stereotypes of Arabs in film/media; and respectively, militarism and anti-Native American and anti-Arab violence had to be proved before critiquing if not condemning these representations. Too bad our “intellectuals” these days, like the “philosopher” author of the piece, are far more invested in rationalizing their pleasures/entertainment than in actually exploring the meanings of our culture with any true spirit of inquiry.
By frank1569, August 13, 2010 at 11:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The un-socialized game-geek cult sure spends a lot of time defending itself, doesn’t it?
Video games - like anything else in life - are fine IN MODERATION. But anyone who believes doing anything 5, 6, 7 or more hours per day, everyday, for years and years won’t result in all kinds of effects and side-effects is deluded. Especially those who also think they’re ‘learning’ about life from a game created by fellow dorks who haven’t lived near enough to teach anyone anything about anything. Except how to design cool games.
Report thisBy felicity, August 13, 2010 at 10:42 am Link to this comment
Oh, so that’s why our kids are doing so well in school,
Report thiswhy our kids are dropping out of school at warp speed,
why half our population is functionally illiterate.
Forget education, give all our kids video games and
we’ll have the best educated most erudite populace on
the planet.
By Old Man Turtle, August 13, 2010 at 7:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Some wannabe refugees from the degrading vicissitudes of the “civilization”
disease seek some temporary relief in the peculiar bio-chemistry accompanying
the “fantasy football” jones. Some get addicted to the electro-chemical juices of
“video gaming.” There’re at-least as many ‘brands’ of that drug available as there
are of quackery-puffed air in the cold cereal aisles of every supermarket.
So relax, Friends. The Kids, at-least, will get over it.
Report thisBy HDT, August 13, 2010 at 7:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree, the critics of video games have it all wrong. Video gamers are learning the skills necessary to compete in a world of high-frequency trading and complex financial derivatives. Gamers will learn to think like urban guerrillas, and protect themselves from the legions of starving zombies sure to emerge as the economy descends into Great Depression II. Gamers won’t have to leave the comfort of air-conditioned homes or dirty their hands like the poor miscreants who make their living tending to the soil and growing food. Gamers will help keep the Chinese economy growing strong, as they purchase each new gaming console. Likewise they will support the mining and electronics recycling industries.
The crtics have it all wrong - we’re all gamers now, or we should be.
Report thisBy prosefights, August 13, 2010 at 6:42 am Link to this comment
“Noah Horowitz, at the Natural Resources Defense Council, calculated that the nation’s gaming consoles, like the Xbox 360 from Microsoft and the Sony PlayStation 3, now use about the same amount of electricity each year as San Diego, the ninth-largest city in country.”
XBOX 360 about 185 watts average
Report thisPlaystation 3 about 193 watts average
By Robert Charron, August 13, 2010 at 6:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Well a Dr. Pangloss might feel video games are the best of all possible games but one can rationalize about anything. On the other hand Mark Bauerlein in his book, “The Dumbest Generation,” feels other wise.
Report thisBy ofersince72, August 13, 2010 at 5:43 am Link to this comment
For about the same money,
you can buy a real decent three piece slate billiard
Report thistable, which will also give you good hand to eye
cordination exercise, be able to converse with your
oppenent, eat potatoe chips and drink you favorite
beveage, possibly win some money and piss your wife off
just like the video games do. Just don’t let her get
better than you, hide the cue sticks when you aren’t
home so she can’t practice, they a sneaky creatures and
I almost found out tooooooo lllllaaaatttteeee.
By Géza Éder, August 13, 2010 at 5:05 am Link to this comment
A really bad article, regurgitating stupid, commonplace viewpoints without any actual insight. My favourite stupidity is about the “connection” between the decline of violent crime and spread of video games. I mean, anyone who actually knows what an “argument” is would laugh at it (it is usually based on putting graphs of 20 year trends of video games and violent crime next to each other, the classic causation fallacy).
This:
“To shield children right up to the age of eighteen from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming. It would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it”
is also incredible. I mean, killing people from a gunship (in Modern Warfare), killing hundreds of people in an Indiana Jones type game like Uncharted 2 (people who you actually hear talking), killing people as a psychopath (in Manhunt) etc quite obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with helping kids “cope with the world as they know it”. Shameful bullshit. Modern Warfare et co are also quite obviously propaganda (where heroic Brits and Americans save stupid Arabs from themselves). MW and MW2 are top tier, super popular, high money videogames btw.
I really love video games btw, but ffs, look at some of them, there’s a lot to despair about. The arguments in this article remind me of discussions on gaming forums between 15 year olds who want to prove to themselves that playing CS ten hours a day is actually preparing them for life (because, you know, surgeons play videogames to improve their dexterity…this is about the only stupid cliche argument the article misses btw, don’t forget it next time please).
Report thisBy ofersince72, August 13, 2010 at 5:02 am Link to this comment
I don’t play them, but if I did, I would want to
play one with a whole lot of blood and guts and titties.
Report thisBy Seosamh, August 13, 2010 at 4:43 am Link to this comment
This is a disgraceful article to publish on your site. With the world in the dire state it is in, you are featuring an article that encourages people to opt-out and dissociate into mind-numbing video games, many of which de-sensitize people to war and killing.
Shame.
Report this