I recently wrote an article where I essentially attacked those who view video games as harmful to the people of today, most notably the youth. Cases have arisen where video games have been partly blamed for violence and even murder. Perhaps the most high profile one was Andres Breivik who supposedly trained for his attack by playing Call of Duty. In light of recent comments by a US senator who is claiming violent video games induce violent behaviour in individuals, (they are supposedly more dangerous than guns), I question his logic behind such assertions without going into the blatantly obvious (you can't kill another human by directly playing a game...).
From what I have read over the years, a number of articles and studies have been written discussing whether violent video games can in fact cause humans to be more violent. The views are generally mixed. Whilst your average Republican candidate would claim that video games cause dangerous behaviour, others say quite the opposite, going as far to say that video games can be used as a good outlet for frustration and anger, which otherwise might be directed at innocent people. Unfortunately though in either case, hard facts are not entirely easy to come by. The debate will rage on until some actual evidence is found but in my opinion, playing a violent game like say GTA, Call of Duty, Gears of War and so on, where violence towards other humans is common place, doesn't make the player a violent person. In my view, should the gamer have violent tendencies, games cannot take the blame as it is more than likely that there is a a more specific reason, possibly even a medical one. If not, then judging by the number of people who play Call of Duty, several million people would now suddenly become gun wielding maniacs with a desire to kill as many people as possible, or at least in Call of Duty's case anyone who isn't American (more to come on COD's potentially racist views....)
 |
| These two girls went on to become... normal women |
Thankfully that hasn't happened. Because if we had a sudden desire to emulate what we see on television, I think we'd be much worse off. See what I don't understand is why Republican politicians in the US in particular are so quick to blame a game, but disregard everything else. For one thing, parts of the US seems to have a strong 'gun culture' which many of these politicians seem to value and uphold. Yet surely such a culture generates more violence than say a video game? A gun is a tool for murder, whether you like it or not. Not necessarily the murder of a fellow human, but a gun's primary function is to kill. There's no way around it. Now obviously when you play a video game, in many cases you kill as well. The difference is, the world of the video game is entirely fictional. The characters, creatures, things you see are not real. It has all been dreamed up by a group of creative individuals. A normal human should be able to separate this from firing a real gun at a real thing. Though I have never shot anything, the effect of killing something in the real world is a lot more lasting than in a fictional one. Why? Because it's you firing. Not some character on a screen, or even in a book or a painting, you. There is nothing or no one to hide behind when you shoot something in the real world. Now if an individual can't separate between what's real and what's not, then there is another issue.
This brings me onto my next point as to why games get stick but other entertainment platforms don't, or at least don't anymore. Certain films, tv shows, books, and even paintings to some degree depict violence. Yet for now, they don't seem receive any blame. Why is that?
What I will now do is compare two games with two films, all of which depict violence as well as other 'sins' (drugs, sex...). If we were to look at say Call of Duty with Rambo, the differences between the two are minimal. But are essentially the story of soldiers fighting for their lives in a variety of locations across the world. One might go so far as to say they glorify violence if it for the right reasons - the good of many. As a soldier in COD you are fighting to save the predominantly Western world, Rambo... well fights for what he believes in. In both a significant number of individuals are shot, and in Rambo's case in quite brutal ways... Now why hasn't mister Senator picked at the latter for inducing gun crime? Is it because it's one of his personal favourites? Does he enjoy watching Vietnamese soldiers getting brutally murdered all for the good of the American people? I don't know but one reason is because it's a film where the viewer has no control over what's happening on screen. In COD you control the soldier and what takes place. Having said that, Rambo is supposedly a hero. He fought in Vietnam to defend them from the spread of communism, to uphold traditional US values and so on... yet here he is killing people.. How's he allowed to get away with it yet Captain Price from COD is hounded for it?
If we look at say Scarface and GTA, the situation is similar. Here though both protagonists are anti-heroes. They kill for crime, fortune, drugs, women, cars.... Yet Nico Bellic supposedly encourages young people to be violent whereas Tony Montana may as well be encouraging kids to stay in school. It just doesn't make sense. In both cases we are well aware that both characters are inherently bad, whether we like them or not.
Rambo 4: He's got his heart in the right place
It seems to me then that games are simply a victim of their time, like films and books were before them - a scapegoat for the problems that exist today. How long it will last is another question. Games won't disappear and nor will the desire for politicians and officials to find a reason for today's problems. But as more and more people adopt games into their lives (a clear trend), the less of an issue it will become... other than maybe consuming too much of their time.
No comments:
Post a Comment