Video Games
Video games are a perennial issue, and a favourite citation for armchair philosophers who pontificate on just what is wrong with the world. Video games and violence is one of the more overstressed pairings of recent parental and academic concern. O'Reilly tells us that we have to protect the children. Never mind that his childhood memoirs contain more instances of combat than many of us will ever know; kids are just more violent these days.
Are they really more violent, or is it just the omnipresence of video recording devices? In the last year it is not the children who have been bringing the guns to school. I would contend that we react more violently to their violence. From my reading of older American lit, and in hearing older people talk about their childhood, I would be lead to believe that a brief fistfight between school children was more acceptable then than it is now; still frowned on, but not likely to lead to immediate expulsion.
Bullying, which is tied to most school violence, has nothing to do with video games. If your children are becoming increasingly cliquish and nasty, then I think the first place to look is in a mirror, then at their friends, and then at their idols. Video games do not teach children to scorn others because of their speech or dress. Discrimination based on looks is not a characteristic of video game subplots. The 5'5 emo highschool kid who opens fire on classmates does not think he is running a mission on Grand Theft Auto; he is just a hurt misfit whose psyche is more fully shattered than originally believed.
But when I think about it, most parents do not know how nasty their children really are to other children. When I was babysitting the Jahns it would always astonish me just how foul many of the children who lived around them were. They would swear like sailors (language I never heard in a video game) when they thought you couldn't hear, call each other names, and just say the nastiest things...and I know at least two of the sets of parents didn't let their kids play video games.
The games give the parents a scape goat. They do not want to take responsibility for the final product of their indolent indulgence. They do not want to think that it is mostly their fault that their children are, let's face it, total brats. The part of society they turn to for the casting of blame is the part they have no hand in. Never mind that prime time television is in the gutter, the parents like it; it is far too early to send the kids to bed, and they need to watch their shows. Never mind that parents, in their dealings toward others, set the first examples for their children to follow. Never mind that they are weak and let the kids take charge.
Video games are, in my humble opinion, a far more cultured median than anything on television right now. It might be partially from the kinds of games I play (which are still, generally, rather violent) and the studios I support, but I am continually finding more literary illusions and subtle tippings of the hat to artists and authors long gone. It is a genre put together by wildly intelligent designers for consumers who are above average in the same department. Not every game will have intelligence, but I think my odds are better with a video game than with prime time TV, or even Discovery, for that matter (we won't even mention Disney).
In fact, I am going to challenge the assumption that youths should be sheltered from the sight of violence. I think violence is one of the harsh realities of the world that should not be hidden from the eyes of those mature enough to handle it. Hiding violence--especially when the kids know it is there--shrouds it in a macabre mystery; it is suddenly charged with the same magical energy as alcohol. Violence is one of those things that children need to learn about in the presence of responsible parents and elders.
Also, such things as, courage, honor, and beauty mean less in the absence of violence. Courage and honor are the province of martyrs and soldiers; To look into the magistrates eyes and announce that he cannot kill you, or to walk into that next cave when one of your friends did not walk out of that last one; these are both examples of courage which most of us could never imagine. We know of them because we read about them, and now, we play them in video games. It is a kind of vicarious heroics. To which concoction we add beauty, which is always most striking when we realize how fragile it is. You never feel a deep peace--and when one does, it often bores us--but a tenuous peace you cannot ignore.
There are, however, also games where you play the villain. Are there not books where the villain is the protagonist, and where the clever author makes you root for him? The core of the video game is, and shall remain, the story. And just as a good story can have you reading well after he splits the old woman's head with an axe to satisfy his greed and ego, so also, I am sure clever artists can wrap you up in the story of a gangster. It is a matter of skill in story telling. You will notice that there are no cases of parents or watch groups blaming GTA for drug dealers in the schools. Nor is Dostoevsky blamed for people killed by means of an axe. The thought is ridiculous. They are good stories, even if the characters are evil. (GTA knowledge is heresay, based entirely on the opinion of a pastor)
I consume my video games with the same relish as I consume my books. There are considered to be four gamer types for video games. They are achievers, killers, explorers, and social gamers. I am an explorer; I like to thresh out the interesting facets of a good game, and I love a good story. I think my love of books probably shaped that. I like my games extra heavy on story and innovative gameplay. Jonathan is a classic killer; Uber-competitive with a side of "gotcha!" He tends to prefer FPS style games, but, in my opinion, he is easily the least violent out of the three of us, and has the least stomach for violence in any form...despite the fact he is the meanest little virtual sniper to ever take me down 5 times straight.
Video games do not run parallel to real life, and no one really thinks that they do. Teenagers are not going to confuse the infamous God of War games (complete with giant man in skin-tight leotard fighting gods and lesser mortals, and one that I have heard mentioned as a game to be censored) with real life; not happening. Again, the game is not to my taste, but it is not exactly the scourge of civilization either.
The family, religion, the neighborhood, and our other sources of brotherhood and civil virtue have been eroding since the late fifties. Our communities are hardly that, and our neighbors are never likely to forgive us for not being normal like them. Cliques are omnipresent, religion is inconvenient, "I" is the emphasis, and the family is an optional thing that you aren't really tied to. Parents are selfish, and their children do their very best to eclipse them in that respect.
And--on top of all that has been stated before--children cannot buy an M rated game, only parents...well, adults. If your kid's uncle buys it and you don't approve...you will have to play the bad guy and take it away.
Perhaps there is a way to truncate this post? There are enough problems with the world, so keep thy legislative nanny-paws off of my video games. Seriously, they don't do it with any other form of private media, and it could be argued that public media is a lot worse, so why this particular genre? Answer: because this is the one that the people making the demands do not partake of and have no knowledge of; therefore, it must be dangerous.
Are they really more violent, or is it just the omnipresence of video recording devices? In the last year it is not the children who have been bringing the guns to school. I would contend that we react more violently to their violence. From my reading of older American lit, and in hearing older people talk about their childhood, I would be lead to believe that a brief fistfight between school children was more acceptable then than it is now; still frowned on, but not likely to lead to immediate expulsion.
Bullying, which is tied to most school violence, has nothing to do with video games. If your children are becoming increasingly cliquish and nasty, then I think the first place to look is in a mirror, then at their friends, and then at their idols. Video games do not teach children to scorn others because of their speech or dress. Discrimination based on looks is not a characteristic of video game subplots. The 5'5 emo highschool kid who opens fire on classmates does not think he is running a mission on Grand Theft Auto; he is just a hurt misfit whose psyche is more fully shattered than originally believed.
But when I think about it, most parents do not know how nasty their children really are to other children. When I was babysitting the Jahns it would always astonish me just how foul many of the children who lived around them were. They would swear like sailors (language I never heard in a video game) when they thought you couldn't hear, call each other names, and just say the nastiest things...and I know at least two of the sets of parents didn't let their kids play video games.
The games give the parents a scape goat. They do not want to take responsibility for the final product of their indolent indulgence. They do not want to think that it is mostly their fault that their children are, let's face it, total brats. The part of society they turn to for the casting of blame is the part they have no hand in. Never mind that prime time television is in the gutter, the parents like it; it is far too early to send the kids to bed, and they need to watch their shows. Never mind that parents, in their dealings toward others, set the first examples for their children to follow. Never mind that they are weak and let the kids take charge.
Video games are, in my humble opinion, a far more cultured median than anything on television right now. It might be partially from the kinds of games I play (which are still, generally, rather violent) and the studios I support, but I am continually finding more literary illusions and subtle tippings of the hat to artists and authors long gone. It is a genre put together by wildly intelligent designers for consumers who are above average in the same department. Not every game will have intelligence, but I think my odds are better with a video game than with prime time TV, or even Discovery, for that matter (we won't even mention Disney).
In fact, I am going to challenge the assumption that youths should be sheltered from the sight of violence. I think violence is one of the harsh realities of the world that should not be hidden from the eyes of those mature enough to handle it. Hiding violence--especially when the kids know it is there--shrouds it in a macabre mystery; it is suddenly charged with the same magical energy as alcohol. Violence is one of those things that children need to learn about in the presence of responsible parents and elders.
Also, such things as, courage, honor, and beauty mean less in the absence of violence. Courage and honor are the province of martyrs and soldiers; To look into the magistrates eyes and announce that he cannot kill you, or to walk into that next cave when one of your friends did not walk out of that last one; these are both examples of courage which most of us could never imagine. We know of them because we read about them, and now, we play them in video games. It is a kind of vicarious heroics. To which concoction we add beauty, which is always most striking when we realize how fragile it is. You never feel a deep peace--and when one does, it often bores us--but a tenuous peace you cannot ignore.
There are, however, also games where you play the villain. Are there not books where the villain is the protagonist, and where the clever author makes you root for him? The core of the video game is, and shall remain, the story. And just as a good story can have you reading well after he splits the old woman's head with an axe to satisfy his greed and ego, so also, I am sure clever artists can wrap you up in the story of a gangster. It is a matter of skill in story telling. You will notice that there are no cases of parents or watch groups blaming GTA for drug dealers in the schools. Nor is Dostoevsky blamed for people killed by means of an axe. The thought is ridiculous. They are good stories, even if the characters are evil. (GTA knowledge is heresay, based entirely on the opinion of a pastor)
I consume my video games with the same relish as I consume my books. There are considered to be four gamer types for video games. They are achievers, killers, explorers, and social gamers. I am an explorer; I like to thresh out the interesting facets of a good game, and I love a good story. I think my love of books probably shaped that. I like my games extra heavy on story and innovative gameplay. Jonathan is a classic killer; Uber-competitive with a side of "gotcha!" He tends to prefer FPS style games, but, in my opinion, he is easily the least violent out of the three of us, and has the least stomach for violence in any form...despite the fact he is the meanest little virtual sniper to ever take me down 5 times straight.
Video games do not run parallel to real life, and no one really thinks that they do. Teenagers are not going to confuse the infamous God of War games (complete with giant man in skin-tight leotard fighting gods and lesser mortals, and one that I have heard mentioned as a game to be censored) with real life; not happening. Again, the game is not to my taste, but it is not exactly the scourge of civilization either.
The family, religion, the neighborhood, and our other sources of brotherhood and civil virtue have been eroding since the late fifties. Our communities are hardly that, and our neighbors are never likely to forgive us for not being normal like them. Cliques are omnipresent, religion is inconvenient, "I" is the emphasis, and the family is an optional thing that you aren't really tied to. Parents are selfish, and their children do their very best to eclipse them in that respect.
And--on top of all that has been stated before--children cannot buy an M rated game, only parents...well, adults. If your kid's uncle buys it and you don't approve...you will have to play the bad guy and take it away.
Perhaps there is a way to truncate this post? There are enough problems with the world, so keep thy legislative nanny-paws off of my video games. Seriously, they don't do it with any other form of private media, and it could be argued that public media is a lot worse, so why this particular genre? Answer: because this is the one that the people making the demands do not partake of and have no knowledge of; therefore, it must be dangerous.
You touch a subject close to my heart—well, my artist heart, in any case. Better to say a subject close to my mind, and one which occupies much of its time. It comes down to this feverishly perpetuated idea that video games have somehow tapped into a whole swath of pure evil that resides somewhere deep in the cosmos, or perhaps in the subconscious minds of impressionable, innocent children.
ReplyDeleteThat's what it comes down to, and what it hinges on is the insistence that somehow games are different, different from movies and books in a way that invalidates them as an art form, and as anything other than morally reprehensible. This insistence is fueled by the refusal of the harshest critics of games to ever play what they criticize—because of course, while you must see a movie to properly criticize it, a game, which is a member of a nefarious and irredeemable medium, is best left untouched; the less you are tainted by it, the clearer you can discern its taint.
I have much to say about this, but I'm plotting a longer and fuller write-up and some point in the future...
And the odd thing is, the powers that be seem to become increasingly virulent toward video games, even as the games are becoming more sophisticated and placing stronger emphasis on the artistry.
ReplyDeleteI will be very interested to see your thoughts on this matter.