I'm a blogging machine today; this is my third post in a row. I have a lot to say, so I'm saying it.
Previously I wrote about why the console wars are harmful and pointless. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. The other half is actually fighting it, and that is more difficult. We as gamers need to put an end to the console wars as they exist today, but we are not alone in our responsibility.
The first people I wish to address are the console manufacturers themselves. Competition is necessary for a business to thrive, but the big 3 console makers have been perpetuating fan competition, and that needs to stop. I don't mean to sound biased, but other than a couple low blows from Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo has been pretty good about this. That doesn't mean I'm excusing them; I'm just saying they don't do it nearly as much as Sony and Microsoft. Guys, if people want your consoles, they'll buy them. Stop attacking each other, and understand that there's no point in someone from your company saying your company's product is the best. If you really care about your customers, stop giving us reasons to get into heated arguments so we can spend more time enjoying your products.
Next, I wish to address gaming journalists. That includes both my fellow bloggers and big-name media outlets. Stop pitting systems against each other. Every time a new set of consoles comes out, gaming media outlets pick a winner. That just gets people angry, even though they usually tell people not to take their winners too seriously. Review, praise, and criticize systems all you want, but don't pit them against each other. We can make our own choices. Declaring a winner means declaring a loser, and that's what gets people angry and defensive.
Now I will address the group of gamers that lives for the console wars, intelligently declaring "PSWii suxors", "Nintendo Weenie is for babies", "Xbox 180 is for l00sers", etc. What in the world is the point of all that? Comments like those will definitely not change any minds, so quit being annoying.
And finally, to the rest of us gamers: if you're going to discuss your preferences, do it rationally and civilly. Don't bash other people's views. And more importantly, don't blindly follow one company. Keep an open mind when making your choices. If your preferences are objective, you won't drift to one side of the console wars. Now, if you happen to select one company's systems every time, that's fine. But don't be a blind follower. Remember all the things I said in my first post about the console wars, and you won't fall into the trap of fighting for a company that won't know about it anyway.
I heard a story from a friend recently, and it told me just how important this advice is. He told me that another friend of his is going to buy a Playstation 3 just to spite Nintendo. Barring medical disorders, I think anyone smart enough to read is smart enough to realize that this guy's plan is stupid. Not only will buying a Playstation 3 not hurt Nintendo, Nintendo won't even know about it. This story is an example of what people will do when the console wars get out of hand.
I don't mean to sound arrogant here; I'm just as responsible for the console wars as any other gamer. We all need to respect each other's choices and be civil. Are you with me? Awesome.
Showing posts with label serious. Show all posts
Showing posts with label serious. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Challenging Gaming-Inspired Violence
I downloaded a controversial PC freeware game a while ago, and in my effort to tie up loose ends before spring break is over, I finally played it today. I did not get very far, but from what I have seen, this game has real merit.
For the uninitiated, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" is a 16-bit-style role-playing game (think Chrono Trigger or 2D Final Fantasy games) created with the "RPG Maker" program. It recreates the Columbine shootings and surrounding events from the point of view of the shooters. It becomes surreal at one point, but it aims to recreate the events as accurately as possible. Other than the true storyline, it plays like any other RPG.
People have criticized the game for "trivializing" or "glorifying" the shootings. Some of these points are well taken, like the argument against the game "humorously" (in some opinions) using factors in the shootings as RPG staples. For example, you can use the PC game "Doom" or a Marilyn Manson CD as stat-boosting accessories, and battles play out much like those in the Final Fantasy series. Some people were just angry that someone would make a game based on these events, and others were concerned that it would spawn more shootings.
But the game, as the creator once stated, is a documentary of sorts. It brings players into the world and minds of the shooters, showing what led to the event. Because it is based on the true details, it shows what went into and caused the shootings. It is very educational, and when observed properly, it can teach us what leads to these shootings so we know how to prevent them in the future. I learned a lot from the small part of the game I've played so far.
It also challenges the boundaries of gaming. World War II resulted in many more deaths than the Columbine shootings, but it has become a video game cliche. True, it the span of time between the events and the games is much larger, but it doesn't make the connection any different. After all, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was partially based on the much more recent L.A. riots, but the historical context was one of few aspects of the game that did not come under fire from critics.
In a similar vein, it reminds the public that video games are no different from any other medium. The movie "Bowling for Columbine" came out significantly earlier, and what did it get for turning the tragedy into inaccurate political propaganda? An Oscar. The obvious surreal parts aside, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" was much more accurate, sympathetic, and candid than that "documentary." I'll save my rant about how much I hate Michael Moore for another day and another blog, but the fact is that the game shouldn't have been shunned after the movie was honored. Video games are here to stay, just like movies, music, TV, and books. Demonizing them because they're more interactive than other media is like demonizing imagination. Anyone can pretend to kill someone else without a video game.
People who look at video games as a root for violence have it backwards. For example, a school shooting perpetrator listed "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" and other, much more violent games as his favorites. Some people saw that as proof that such games lead to murder. But ask any psychologist, and he or she will tell you that it's much more likely that people play these games BECAUSE they have violent intentions than it is the other way around.
I'm not saying video games never lead to real violence. If you live in such conditions; because of your environment, your age, mental disabilities, etc.; that murder seems like a viable option, video games might just be the driving force that lead you to action. But that's a very different message than the one people like Jack Thompson are sending. These people want us to believe that video games can turn any normal, well-behaved person into a murderer, and they are always the first media target after a young person commits murder or suicide. I've played all the Grand Theft Auto games, Silent Scope, Red Steel, the Mortal Kombat series, Doom (including levels designed by one of the Columbine shooters), Quake, and even Night Trap. However, of all the kids at my high school, I am probably the LEAST likely to ever shoot anyone. You can't look at video games as a universal evil; they only factor into violence in rare, specific cases in which they are not the main culprits anyway.
If Jack Thompson and other "crusaders" want to stop youth violence, they need to stop looking at the easy target of video games and start improving living conditions. If regular citizens want to protect their kids from violence at school, they should teach their kids not to mistreat others. Getting rid of violent video games might help a little bit, but improving people's lives will stop the raw emotions that inspire the violence in the first place.
For the uninitiated, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" is a 16-bit-style role-playing game (think Chrono Trigger or 2D Final Fantasy games) created with the "RPG Maker" program. It recreates the Columbine shootings and surrounding events from the point of view of the shooters. It becomes surreal at one point, but it aims to recreate the events as accurately as possible. Other than the true storyline, it plays like any other RPG.
People have criticized the game for "trivializing" or "glorifying" the shootings. Some of these points are well taken, like the argument against the game "humorously" (in some opinions) using factors in the shootings as RPG staples. For example, you can use the PC game "Doom" or a Marilyn Manson CD as stat-boosting accessories, and battles play out much like those in the Final Fantasy series. Some people were just angry that someone would make a game based on these events, and others were concerned that it would spawn more shootings.
But the game, as the creator once stated, is a documentary of sorts. It brings players into the world and minds of the shooters, showing what led to the event. Because it is based on the true details, it shows what went into and caused the shootings. It is very educational, and when observed properly, it can teach us what leads to these shootings so we know how to prevent them in the future. I learned a lot from the small part of the game I've played so far.
It also challenges the boundaries of gaming. World War II resulted in many more deaths than the Columbine shootings, but it has become a video game cliche. True, it the span of time between the events and the games is much larger, but it doesn't make the connection any different. After all, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was partially based on the much more recent L.A. riots, but the historical context was one of few aspects of the game that did not come under fire from critics.
In a similar vein, it reminds the public that video games are no different from any other medium. The movie "Bowling for Columbine" came out significantly earlier, and what did it get for turning the tragedy into inaccurate political propaganda? An Oscar. The obvious surreal parts aside, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" was much more accurate, sympathetic, and candid than that "documentary." I'll save my rant about how much I hate Michael Moore for another day and another blog, but the fact is that the game shouldn't have been shunned after the movie was honored. Video games are here to stay, just like movies, music, TV, and books. Demonizing them because they're more interactive than other media is like demonizing imagination. Anyone can pretend to kill someone else without a video game.
People who look at video games as a root for violence have it backwards. For example, a school shooting perpetrator listed "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" and other, much more violent games as his favorites. Some people saw that as proof that such games lead to murder. But ask any psychologist, and he or she will tell you that it's much more likely that people play these games BECAUSE they have violent intentions than it is the other way around.
I'm not saying video games never lead to real violence. If you live in such conditions; because of your environment, your age, mental disabilities, etc.; that murder seems like a viable option, video games might just be the driving force that lead you to action. But that's a very different message than the one people like Jack Thompson are sending. These people want us to believe that video games can turn any normal, well-behaved person into a murderer, and they are always the first media target after a young person commits murder or suicide. I've played all the Grand Theft Auto games, Silent Scope, Red Steel, the Mortal Kombat series, Doom (including levels designed by one of the Columbine shooters), Quake, and even Night Trap. However, of all the kids at my high school, I am probably the LEAST likely to ever shoot anyone. You can't look at video games as a universal evil; they only factor into violence in rare, specific cases in which they are not the main culprits anyway.
If Jack Thompson and other "crusaders" want to stop youth violence, they need to stop looking at the easy target of video games and start improving living conditions. If regular citizens want to protect their kids from violence at school, they should teach their kids not to mistreat others. Getting rid of violent video games might help a little bit, but improving people's lives will stop the raw emotions that inspire the violence in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
