I'm not sure how to answer this, because it seems likely than a personal opinion ("I don't like the extreme levels of violence present in some games") is being conflated with a speculation ("The level of violence in video games is going to be the downfall of the industry.")
Saying that video games had the same problems as comic books and so they're similarly going to fail is such a gross oversimplification that it's hard to take it seriously. It's a little like someone saying that because cannons and catapults are both weapons used to lay siege and no one uses catapults any longer, there's no future in gunpowder weaponry.
I'd also like to suggest that some of comic books' greatest work ever has come out in the last twenty years, and that some of the highest grossing entertainments of all time have drawn their roots from that "obscure" form, but I digress.
If you don't like violence, I sympathize, but as has been said a dozen times and will be said dozens more, there's very little to force you to play violent games if you don't want to. You could be trying to convey that the industry could be making fantastic non-violent games if it didn't focus so much attention on the AAA-first person shooter market; this doesn't entirely come across from the original post, but it could make for an interesting topic of discussion elsewhere.
It's true that violence attracts unfortunate attention to the industry from the government and the ever-popular professional scold industry. And it's not impossible that the recent California case will, in fact, do some harm to the industry. But quite frankly, time is on the games' industry's side on this one. What we see in these periodic scuffles is the last struggles of a generation that finds the relevant technologies faintly frightening even before questionable content is brought into the equation. While comic books aren't the most apt analogy, if you look into what the straight-and-square set were saying about rock and roll fifty years ago or jazz ninety years ago, you'll find similarities right down to the condemning language. In short, as I've said before, when we have Senators who have actually played Mortal Kombat, all this sound and fury is going to seem laughable. (And we'll probably be too pent up about whatever new medium our children are ruining their lives with to notice.)
Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry. And violent games, like them or not, sell very, very well. While market forces are on their side, a few angry politicians trying to make easy points with their constituencies are not going to ring the death knell of video games.
Now, the growing size of the staff necessary to launch an industry-competitive game?... That might do it. But that's another day's meat.
Saying that video games had the same problems as comic books and so they're similarly going to fail is such a gross oversimplification that it's hard to take it seriously. It's a little like someone saying that because cannons and catapults are both weapons used to lay siege and no one uses catapults any longer, there's no future in gunpowder weaponry.
I'd also like to suggest that some of comic books' greatest work ever has come out in the last twenty years, and that some of the highest grossing entertainments of all time have drawn their roots from that "obscure" form, but I digress.
If you don't like violence, I sympathize, but as has been said a dozen times and will be said dozens more, there's very little to force you to play violent games if you don't want to. You could be trying to convey that the industry could be making fantastic non-violent games if it didn't focus so much attention on the AAA-first person shooter market; this doesn't entirely come across from the original post, but it could make for an interesting topic of discussion elsewhere.
It's true that violence attracts unfortunate attention to the industry from the government and the ever-popular professional scold industry. And it's not impossible that the recent California case will, in fact, do some harm to the industry. But quite frankly, time is on the games' industry's side on this one. What we see in these periodic scuffles is the last struggles of a generation that finds the relevant technologies faintly frightening even before questionable content is brought into the equation. While comic books aren't the most apt analogy, if you look into what the straight-and-square set were saying about rock and roll fifty years ago or jazz ninety years ago, you'll find similarities right down to the condemning language. In short, as I've said before, when we have Senators who have actually played Mortal Kombat, all this sound and fury is going to seem laughable. (And we'll probably be too pent up about whatever new medium our children are ruining their lives with to notice.)
Video games are a multi-billion dollar industry. And violent games, like them or not, sell very, very well. While market forces are on their side, a few angry politicians trying to make easy points with their constituencies are not going to ring the death knell of video games.
Now, the growing size of the staff necessary to launch an industry-competitive game?... That might do it. But that's another day's meat.
