To start with, anyone who thinks that getting lost alone in a fantasy world populated with violent people and questionable morals is something new should think again. The phenomenon has been around for centuries and it’s called books. Many traditional children's books, like the Grimm stories, are full of gore, wanton cruelty, and immoral characters. It’s hard to imagine a game, allowed to appear in public, that is more disturbing to a sensitive teenager – target group of both video games and worrying parents and politicians – than the reading of Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho. Lately, movies have made storytelling even more popular by adding visual aid, and there is no shortage of films depicting the darker sides of life. Many of them are highly acclaimed and represent the peak of the cultural achievement of the 20th century. There are new things under the sun, but video games – not technologically, but in the story-telling respect – are not one of them.
Claims of the aggression-inducing nature of video games - often the main accusation leveled against them – should also be taken with a grain of salt. One can argue that the comparison with books is invalidated by the active nature of the games. One can read a book or watch a movie, but cannot actively live out her own worst impulses with them in a way that video games allow us to do. That is true. But first of all, the vast majority of the games out there – simulators, Super Mario clones, strategic games - have nothing to do with explicit violence. Second, the implicit assumption, that acting out in a fantasy world makes the person’s real-world behavior more violent, is not backed up by scientific consensus either. On the opposite, many psychologists support the claim that people, who blow the steam off this way, are less compelled to do so in real life. Much more research by experts needs to be conducted to convincingly support either side of the debate. Until the consensus is reached, the jury on video games’ unique violence-inducing effects is out.
The second most frequent complaint, regarding the time one wastes while sitting in front of the computer, should be taken seriously, but with some caveats. Games indeed can be massively addictive, especially young males tend to become slaves of their computers. But an unhealthy level of attraction to something can develop in countless other areas – movies, card games, football teams, artistic endeavors come to mind –, and time-wasting is highly subjective. One can equally argue that reading detective novels doesn’t contribute to the well-being of the person or the society either. Additionally, some games do actually improve important skills of the player. Reflexes, strategic thinking, even gains in lexical knowledge can be the result of intensive gaming sessions. Whether it’s time wasted or well-spent, depends on the game and the person – much like with most activities in life.
As with most broad topics, sweeping statements over the wide variety of video games are largely meaningless, and the critic should narrow her aim. Games range from hyper-violent hitman adventures to tools of modern time education. First-person shooters, strategic games, car races, Tetris, city-builder simulations are but a very few examples of the plethora of the genres out there. They attract, influence, develop in very different ways. Criticism – or support – should target specifics if it wants to be of any meaning.
In conclusion, as a form of human activity, the video games phenomenon is neither entirely new nor very meaningful as a single concept. Some genres will be indispensable parts of 21st-century education, some are just trash no one should take a look at – just like books, movies or theatre plays. Anyone wishing to express a strong opinion about them should, first of all, get her facts straight, and second, be specific.
Disclaimer: this is a reprinted essay of the author from 2019
0 Comments:
Post a Comment