Anti-games debate.

[Sore Thumbs]

I must start by saying that I am an avid game enthusiast and have been since I was about 4 years old.

I have heard the arguments against games in general made by many different people who have never in thier life played a video game. I keep my ear to the ground regarding anti-games debates because I value video games more than any other form of entertainment or enlightenment I have ever experienced. I have made the same arguments in imaginary Fox news debates as you, and many other video game analysts already have.

However, if Socrates has taught us anything, it is that the biggest danger in any society is the suspension of critical thought. In the same vein, I have never held any opinion without doing my best to understand my opinion's opposite. Hell, I've even made a point to sit through Justin Bieber's entire Baby music video before declaring my dislike for him.

The only arguement that seemed in any way credible to me against video games that the interactive element of video games makes them unique in their capacity to alter the mindset of it's audience. It frightens me to look at the back of my Socom box cover and see an ad for the US Navy SEALs.

So this, I propose to you:

How can you state that an object belonging to an interactive artistic medium cannot have a potent potential to negatively alter the mental state of it's audience, when art, by definition, attempts to do so?

Put simply, art alters perception. Interactivity enables concious thought and action. Video games with the purpose of enabling meaningless violence and degradation would then enforce negative thought and action. Why should this be tolerated in society?

 

[RatRace123]

Art only alters perception, it doesn't influence actions. A person who plays a bunch of violent videogames and then commits acts of violence wasn't mentally all there to begin with.
If people can't differentiate between games and reality and if they let games influence them to perform sickening acts, it's not the fault of the games themselves; and people who can separate games and reality shouldn't have to be punished for the actions of those who can't.

Besides, most games are about more than meaningless violence and degredation, and this argument could easily be aimed at movies, TV, comics, and it has been in the past. Psychos have existed long before any of these forms of entertainment have.

And most of the critics, as you've said haven't played one game in their entire lives, they're going by twisted facts and word of mouth rumors most of the time.

 

[PrinceofPersia]

http://youtu.be/LWr4htYp9dM

Specifically starting at 3:41 answers your questions.

 

[Sore Thumbs]

Let me pose this question then: If a game were to be designed with the sole purpose of conditioning its audience to commit acts of violence, without regard to entertainment value or enlightnement, should it be accepted?

 

[Madman123456]

You may want to turn this thing around. Videogames are not "evil", as some people would like other people to believe. As far as we know, videogames are not able to influence you anymore then any other form of media.
There is definitely potential for abuse but no more or less then in other forms of media.

That's pretty much my overall position. No one can argue that videogames do not have any influence whatsoever on People. Pretty much everything does.

 

[Justin Gooch]

You have to take in mind the mental stability of the people playing the games, looking at the art, watching the movies, or even reading books. I find it funny that many people say that video games promote violence, and everything else. Ok.... maybe they do, but it's also fantasy violence. It's the newest form of entertainment that has really blown up in recent years and you can't turn around without seeing an advertisement or read an article on a new game, or anything else really. You can take two people that are identical and sit them down to play the exact same game on the same difficulty and same stages, and both come away with a different understanding, or different feelings.

really don't want to open up a can of worms, but look at history and it's teachings, and at the violence that history promotes, and along with religion, and look at the past of religions and everything has happened because of them.

People are going to take what they want from different medians of entertainment, be it movies, games, books or whatever it may be.

What I'm trying to say is, books, tv, and movies all alter perception, and depending on the person they are going to feel like their median is interactive. If we aren't going to tolerate this kind of violence and degradation in one median of entertainment, then why stand for it in any median of entertainment.

 

[Sore Thumbs]

I have to disagree about modern games with violence being fantastical. Many are, yes, but look at the top games today: Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Call of Duty (Black Ops or Modern Warfare 2). These games and games such as Socom 4 and Medal of Honor make a point to and pride themselves on being realistic.

 

[Liudeius]

Well for one, CoD, MW, and the like aren't art, those are purely entertainment titles. Just like pure action movies are not recognized as art.

But art is also open to interpretation. How one interprets art is based on who they are, so if you aren't already a serial killer, you should be fine.

 

[Sore Thumbs]

What I'm trying to say is, books, tv, and movies all alter perception, and depending on the person they are going to feel like their median is interactive. If we aren't going to tolerate this kind of violence and degradation in one median of entertainment, then why stand for it in any median of entertainment.

As I've said, video games are unique in their interactivity. There is a difference in reading about violence in a book and creating simulated violence in a video game.

 

[Sore Thumbs]

Well for one, CoD, MW, and the like aren't art, those are purely entertainment titles. Just like pure action movies are not recognized as art.

Wait, did you just say that something can belong to an artistic medium and yet, at the exact same time, not be art? Isn't a poem art regardless of its quality or theme?

 

[Sore Thumbs]

"I believe that censorship is worse for society than negative media by far" I'm sure Socrates would agree.

 

[Liudeius]

Well for one, CoD, MW, and the like aren't art, those are purely entertainment titles. Just like pure action movies are not recognized as art.

Wait, did you just say that something can belong to an artistic medium and yet, at the exact same time, not be art? Isn't a poem art regardless of its quality or theme?

Well not all scribbles on paper are art either.
While I'm not saying trying to be primarily an action film/game disqualifies something as art, it is not the main goal of those to be art. Most action only entertainment isn't intended to make you think about the world or interpret meaning (as high art does), it's just for fun.

While I suppose they do have some artistic merit. They tend to not have enough to be considered as respectable as other films.

 

[Raskolnikov34]

I think games can unhinge certain, already mentally unstable people and have violent results; I doubt they could make a normal person and turn them into a psychopath. That said, it is up to the parents or caretakers of such individuals to regulate the games such a person would play.

Despite this, I really wouldn't see it as to much of a tragedy if videogames were significantly censored or even outright banned. Sure, a large amount of the population would lose an amusing hobby, and I personally would be annoyed at my favorite way to shut my brain off, but its not like society would lose some great amount of art, like if say literature or films were banned/ censored.

 

[FalloutJack]

There is no real anti-gaming debate. There's a bunch of shouty, whiney people that hop up and down, screaming at the top of their lungs...but no one will listen to them and they have ceased to become relevent about 20 years ago.

 

[Raskolnikov34]

"I believe that censorship is worse for society than negative media by far" I'm sure Socrates would agree.

Censorship would lead to only one point of view being voiced, which would itself be negative media.

 

[Thaluikhain]

"I believe that censorship is worse for society than negative media by far" I'm sure Socrates would agree.

Yeah I think so. What do you think the other philosophers would say about it? I always got the feeling Plato may not be as averse to censorship since he seemed to hate artists. Also the vibe I got from Republic gives me that feeling.

Didn't Plato flat out demand censorship, and terrible punishments for anyone who dared speak against the ideal state, once it had established itself?

OP: Whenever this issue comes up, the usual defense is "but movies/TV/books/whatever do it to". I don't buy that as a defense at all. Surely if games are no different from other mediums, it merely means that concerns about them should carry the same weight, not be dismissed out of hand?

 

[Raskolnikov34]

"I believe that censorship is worse for society than negative media by far" I'm sure Socrates would agree.

Censorship would lead to only one point of view being voiced, which would itself be negative media.

Thats one reason I think it is worse. Too much censorship leads to doublespeak and devolution of language to pure falsehood. Plus art is severely compromised int he presence of censorship and society suffers from less creativity.

Exactly, though as games don't really contribute much to society as art, in my opinion society wouldn't suffer much by the censorship of it.

Games could at one point in the future "mature" though, so they shouldn't be censored despite this.