PostScript: G4 Videogame Violence Special
I watched G4's special on videogame violence, mostly focusing on the history of the controversy.
First, "facts" that I have to dispute. There is one stat that is actually put out on the pro-gaming side. The claim: there was a significantly lower violent-crimes rate after Doom was released. While Doom and other first-person shooters may contribute to the crime rate (because people would rather play it late at night rather then commit crimes), it is impossible with these figures alone on just how much that is a factor, if much at all. For all we know, the Internet (which was emerging around the same time) could have been a bigger factor.
However, the entire controversy is based around the same, loose Thing A was around-Thing B happened-thus Thing A caused Thing B type of logic. Because some of the shooters in school shootings, most notably Colombine, had Doom doesn't mean that the game cause the shooting. Even presuming that there was some link between violence and videogames, we don't even know if it was a chicken or the egg type thing.
When it comes to actual facts in this debate, there are few. First, (to my knowledge) there are no studies that actually like violent videogames with crime. All the studies, usually put up by different groups with a predetermined side in the debate, try to determine a link between videogames and violence/agression. I have yet seen something that looks at link or non-link between videogames and actual commited crimes.
Neither side has the facts we need to prove a link or non-link. But if there's one thing both sides are guilty of (especially the anti-gaming side), it's using stories to misrepresent.
We see it all the time in political ads. An average family talks about the troubles that a law would cause. Bush used to talk about a waitress who would gain thousands from his tax breaks. Vice-president Gore showcased a family who's son who was braindamaged from a medical mistake. All showed as an example of a problem or benefit, all atypical.
In talking about the Colombine killers, it is just one example. The anti-gaming side seems to rely almost exclusivly on such examples.
Outside the special, pro-gaming is at least attempting to use Jack Thompson (who will literally never stop being in the news in some way) to showcase how rediculous anti-gaming groups are. It isn't how we should do this debate.
One thing that was important that was told in the special was that movies and comicbooks had to go through the same process. Videogames may be the same. Right now, there are too many games that are made purly for shock value. When we find the finite line that shouldn't be crossed is likely when we'll see the controversy die down. That, and when Jack Thompson retires.
First, "facts" that I have to dispute. There is one stat that is actually put out on the pro-gaming side. The claim: there was a significantly lower violent-crimes rate after Doom was released. While Doom and other first-person shooters may contribute to the crime rate (because people would rather play it late at night rather then commit crimes), it is impossible with these figures alone on just how much that is a factor, if much at all. For all we know, the Internet (which was emerging around the same time) could have been a bigger factor.
However, the entire controversy is based around the same, loose Thing A was around-Thing B happened-thus Thing A caused Thing B type of logic. Because some of the shooters in school shootings, most notably Colombine, had Doom doesn't mean that the game cause the shooting. Even presuming that there was some link between violence and videogames, we don't even know if it was a chicken or the egg type thing.
When it comes to actual facts in this debate, there are few. First, (to my knowledge) there are no studies that actually like violent videogames with crime. All the studies, usually put up by different groups with a predetermined side in the debate, try to determine a link between videogames and violence/agression. I have yet seen something that looks at link or non-link between videogames and actual commited crimes.
Neither side has the facts we need to prove a link or non-link. But if there's one thing both sides are guilty of (especially the anti-gaming side), it's using stories to misrepresent.
We see it all the time in political ads. An average family talks about the troubles that a law would cause. Bush used to talk about a waitress who would gain thousands from his tax breaks. Vice-president Gore showcased a family who's son who was braindamaged from a medical mistake. All showed as an example of a problem or benefit, all atypical.
In talking about the Colombine killers, it is just one example. The anti-gaming side seems to rely almost exclusivly on such examples.
Outside the special, pro-gaming is at least attempting to use Jack Thompson (who will literally never stop being in the news in some way) to showcase how rediculous anti-gaming groups are. It isn't how we should do this debate.
One thing that was important that was told in the special was that movies and comicbooks had to go through the same process. Videogames may be the same. Right now, there are too many games that are made purly for shock value. When we find the finite line that shouldn't be crossed is likely when we'll see the controversy die down. That, and when Jack Thompson retires.
posted by SeanM at 9:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home